Archived: Glasshouse College

Overall, the service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and coordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Risk assessments had been undertaken to keep people safe whilst still enabling them to retain their independence. A dedicated safeguarding team, safeguarding policies and staff safeguarding training prevented people experiencing unavoidable harm. The registered manager had an on-going recruitment drive to ensure staffing levels could be maintained. Recruitment processes ensured staff were safe to work with people. Medicines were managed safely. People took, or were administered their medicines as they had been prescribed. Accidents and incidents had been analysed and where required changes had been made to practice, to try to prevent future occurrences. The premises were visibly clean. Action had been taken to promote good hygiene standards.

Staff Induction training ensured new staff were equipped with the knowledge they needed to carry out their job role. Staff confirmed their mandatory training was adequate and up-to-date.

Staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were followed. Consent was requested before staff delivered care and support. The needs and goals of each person was of paramount importance to the provider, registered manager and staff. The service vision focused on person-centred support, the promotion of life skills to aid independence, and the enablement of people to attain their individual educational goals and/or work experience. Staff were aware of people’s individual medical needs. Where possible people shopped for food and prepared their own meals.

People and relatives told us staff were polite, kind and promoted their dignity, privacy and independence. The atmosphere of the service was friendly and enabling. People were supported to make decisions about their daily lives and future goals. The provider encouraged people to have contact with their family and friends.

People and their relatives were involved in their and their family member’s assessments and reviews to ensure all needs were determined and addressed. People and relatives told us they would feel comfortable to raise any complaints they had with the staff or registered manager. People participated in a range of educational courses and leisure time activities.

People and relatives told us the service was well-led. They told us the management team were available and approachable. Provider feedback processes had been used to gather information about the views of people and relatives about the service provision. The registered manager understood their regulatory responsibilities to provide us (CQC) with notifications about important events and incidents that occurred whilst the service was delivering care.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 04 July 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

People continued to receive support that was safe and staff received the appropriate training to keep them safe. People were still being supported with their medicines as they were prescribed and there were enough staff.

People continued to be supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Where people were restricted this was done following the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The care people received continued to be good. People were supported and encouraged by staff to live as independent as they could. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.

The service continued to be responsive to how people’s needs were met. The service people received was reviewed on a regular basis and people’s decisions were an integral part of the review process. People knew how to raise complaints if they had any concerns about the service they received.

The service continued to be well-led. The provider ensured the appropriate checks and audits were carried out to maintain the quality of the service. The provider used a quality assurance process to enable people to share their views on the service by way of completing a questionnaire.

We found that people received care and support which met their needs. One person we spoke with told us they were happy. Staff we spoke with knew about people's care needs and risks which were appropriately managed.

Staff we spoke with explained that the level of support they received had improved since the new manager had been in post. One staff member said, 'We did not have support before but that has really changed now. We have regular contact with the manager.'

Records we looked at for people's care and the management of the service, were detailed and fit for purpose. Records were easily accessible and were stored in a way that ensured people's confidentiality.

We found that people's needs had been assessed by a wide range of health professionals including nurses, family and specialist doctors . This meant that people's health care needs were being monitored and met.

The provider demonstrated that they had a robust recruitment process in place and there were also systems in place to monitor how the home was run, to ensure people received a quality service.